Babers asks, What is the “Probable Cost” for the Dismissal of charges vs Kerwin, Peter Lim

Rep. Robert Ace S. Barbers

2nd District, Surigao del Norte

Chairman, Committee on Dangerous Drugs

BARBERS ASKS, WHAT IS THE “PROBABLE COST” FOR THE  DISMISSAL OF CHARGES VS KERWIN, PETER LIM

            Robert Ace Barbers, Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Dangerous Drugs today condemned the initial exoneration by the DOJ Panel of Prosecutors of confessed drug personality Kerwin Espinosa and alleged druglords Peter Go Lim, Peter Co, and other personalities accused of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act.

            Barbers pointed out that Kerwin Espinosa has openly and voluntarily admitted under oath before the Senate investigation in August 2017, that he is indeed involved in illegal drug trafficking in Regions 7 and 8.

            Espinosa further admitted that Peter Go Lim is one of his suppliers of illegal drugs.

            The PNP earlier filed the case against the accused using the affidavit of Marcelo Adorco, Espinosa’s driver bodyguard as the basis for filing the case. 

The DOJ panel however dismissed the cases stating that Adorco’s testimony alone was insufficient, being uncorroborated by another witness.

 “How can the DOJ panel say that the testimony of the driver bodyguard of Espinosa is uncorroborated when Espinosa himself validated such testimony in his own admission before the Senate investigation”, Barbers asked.

"Is the DOJ panel blind, deaf or dumb?  Did they not see not hear the testimony and admission that Kerwin Espinosa made before the Senate investigation?  They could have taken notice of that admission and considered it part of the evidence before deciding the case against Espinosa and Lim”, Barbers said.

“All that the DOJ Panel is tasked to find out is the presence of probable cause, not sufficiency of evidence.  Probable cause in lay man’s terms is 'something that may lead a reasonable man to believe that indeed a crime is probably committed'. But instead of doing just that, the panel arrogated upon itself the functions of the court, that is evaluating the sufficiency of evidence”, Barbers said.

            “Instead of probable cause, the panel decision raised a mysterious million dollar question, what is the probable cost of the dismissal? ”, Barbers added. 

            Barbers likewise said he observed that lately, there seems to be a trend by the DOJ in dismissing drug cases due to alleged insufficiency of evidence, which he finds very alarming, just like in the case of former Customs Commissioner Faeldon, the liability of whom was so glaring yet was cleared by the DOJ.    

            “The ultimate casualty here is the President’s war on drugs.  It is a big blow to the credibility of the President’s list of narco personalities.  If the DOJ wants to cast a shadow of doubt on the President’s list, then it is succeeding, to the delight of the narco personalities mentioned therein,” Barbers said.

Congressman LITO ATIENZA

BUHAY Party-list

March 14, 2018

            Senior Deputy Minority Leader and BUHAY Party-list Representative Lito Atienza yesterday roundly criticized the proposed law House Bill 7303 or An Act Instituting Absolute Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage in the Philippines.

            This proposed law is definitely unconstitutional!  It is expressly stated in Article XV on  The Family, Section 2, that ‘Marriage, as an inviolable social institution,  is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.’

The Constitution is very clear and there is no room for misinterpretation. So how can Congressman Edcel Lagman interpret their proposed law as constitutional?

            Every definition that can be found on the word inviolable states that it is unassailable, cannot be broken, cannot be interchanged, and anything inviolable is considered hallowed, holy, sacred, sacrosanct and untouchable.

            Ano ba ang definition nila ng inviolability? This is precisely why I did not interpellate regarding the other provisions and sections of the proposed law – because the whole law is unconstitutional and Congress should not be tackling this at all! This cannot be considered as part of the law of the land.